Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

​

"the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"

What "rights" does marriage confer on anyone that they don't already have ?

 

[Tisme]

​

I am just pointing out that tinks own cult participates in polygamy, which is one of the slippery slope arguments she used against gay marriage, and it also has a definition of marriage that goes beyond Tinks gold standard.



That's like saying.

"the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"

Yeah but you want the bus modified to cater to the special needs of the blacks at the discomfort of the majority of commuters....we all know what happens when you provide concessional tickets to those that don't need them.

Reminds me of song:



In Los Angeles the composition of bus commuters is 92% coloureds, the pale faces don't value their trips much anymore.

 

[awg]

The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.


Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
There is no reason for the government to promote broken families or your lifestyle.


We have done this topic to death, and people that have made up their minds are not going to change, one way or the other.

I changed my mind, and not so long ago either!

3 adult sons, (all hetro). No-one that knows me would say I was even slightly "politically correct"

Was bought up in the '70s, when attitudes were very homophobic. I largely subscribed to those views.

"natural law", not sure what that is, other animals (apart from human species) exibit homosexual behaviour too?

imo morality in our society pre-dates Christian values, going back to Greek philosophers (lol greeks )

There are many things worse than gay marriage, for kids and society imo, so while I respect the right of religious and other objectors to hold their own view, the time has come.

What would be your reaction if one of your own children or grandchildren decided they wanted to marry their gay partner?

sorry and not meaning to pick on you, do not know your reasons, but I personally cannot see any other satisfactory objections except religious grounds?...and see then I dont like religous people telling ME what I am supposed to do. I was bought up with and have fair knowledge of Christian teachings.

I will end by saying that my preferred family model is traditional, in the ideal family world for me, the infant is nurtured and breast fed by the mother, and most certainly not shoved into some childcare centre, all that needs a framework of support.

 

[Value Collector]

Yeah but you want the bus modified to cater to the special needs of the blacks at the discomfort of the majority of commuters.....

what modifications are you talking about?


and what would the discomfort be?

 

[Value Collector]

What "rights" does marriage confer on anyone that they don't already have ?

What rights does sitting at the front of the bus give blacks that they didn't have before?

 

[SirRumpole]

What rights does sitting at the front of the bus give blacks that they didn't have before?

You are comparing apples with oranges, not valid.

Civil Unions vs Marriage, what is the practical difference ?

 

[Value Collector]

You are comparing apples with oranges, not valid.

Civil Unions vs Marriage, what is the practical difference ?

there are lots of little nuances between the two, for example just being able to answer yes to the question "are you married?" is a good feeling for some, other wise people wouldn't get married, they would all just live in defacto relationships.

But my example with blacks on the bus is true, Technically Blacks didn't get any new rights other than sitting a few seats further forward, they were just being treated as equals, which is mainly what we are after here for the gay members of our society.

 

[Tisme]

what modifications are you talking about?


and what would the discomfort be?

I dunno .... but after getting held hostage by the driver in a taxi in USA I'm not going to risk a trip on a fricken bus. I'll leave you to your expertise on the american blacks ... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement.

 

[CanOz]

I dunno .... but after getting held hostage by the driver in a taxi in USA I'm not going to risk a trip on a fricken bus. I'll leave you to your expertise on the american blacks ... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement.

Should've Ubered

 

[Value Collector]

I dunno .... .

I am asking what modifications you expect from granting gays the right to marry.

and what discomfort this will cause the majority.

... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement

No pedestal, just equal rights. that's all.

 

[wayneL]

Right or wrong, completely ridiculous or completely natural, or anywhere in between, gay marriage is going to happen. IMO just freakin pass it and get the issue out of the way.

But I gotta say this: The gay marriage lobby has gone ape shut with the ascent of Mal. We are being bombarded with pro gaiety on the ABC and FaceAche. So here it is - it's not about you. The hope for a Turnbull gumint is about getting our country back on track, so back the #### off.

You'll get your rights to marriage, but there is more important stuff and you are detracting from that.

 

[sydboy007]

+1

Luutzu, I have never said Syd is not a decent person, I have stood up for Marriage and it's meaning.

To redefine Marriage affects us all, as was shown by an athiest, Brendan O'Neill, a champion of freedom of speech, and is not for a totalitarian regime.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=98&p=882822&viewfull=1#post882822

It is VC and Syd that have continuously gone on about the Catholic Church.
What has that got to do with this debate.

I have asked how same sex marriage benefits society -- it doesn't.
Morality is a part of our society, which is based on Christian principles.

Brendan O'Neill and Richard Dawkins are both atheists, and have locked horns on many occasions.
Dawkins is a fundamentalist
The religion thread is here if they want to talk about religion
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27938&page=57

Agree, Rumpole, we are all entitled to freedom of speech, and it is a concern when people try to shut you down with PC.

Christian morality

Ok Tink. Explain the Christian morality that says

* beating your slave and having them die after a day or so is not murder

* The form of slavery for daughters to be sold

* the father of a female rape victim can force them to marry their rapist

* Why did God order David to kill 70,000 people for holding a census?

* What about the God sanctioned Murder, Rape, and Pillage at Jabesh-gilead. Why do you think they only kept the virgin girls?

* In Hosea they talk about dashing the babies of Samarians against the rocks

* In deuteronomy it talks about the appropriate way to rape female captives

* Also in deuteronomy it talks about killing your unruly sons

So Tink, of the above morality sanctioned by your God, what do you currently follow? Do you have a house slave? Would you be Ok for one of your children to have a female slave wife, or one of your daughters to be one?

Personally, I think my morality based on the premises of do unto others as they would have you do unto them, will serve as a much better base for morality.

If religion should be discussed in the religion thread, why do you keep using it as a justification for bocking the rights of same sex couples to be married.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes. Imo, marriage/civil union is an agreement between two people. I don't see why government needs to interfere in either one of them unless they confer legal rights on others namely children.

So if people don't intend to have children, I see no difference between marriage & civil union.

Do a bit of investigation and you'll see that in terms of property rights civil unions are meaningless.

i don't think there's been been much case law created around someone in a SS relationship leaving their assets to their partner and how contestable that would be by any surviving family members.

Just for an experiment, try introducing your wife as your partner, and call your relationship a civil union. I'm sure people will give you a befuddled look.

 

[sydboy007]

Right or wrong, completely ridiculous or completely natural, or anywhere in between, gay marriage is going to happen. IMO just freakin pass it and get the issue out of the way.

But I gotta say this: The gay marriage lobby has gone ape shut with the ascent of Mal. We are being bombarded with pro gaiety on the ABC and FaceAche. So here it is - it's not about you. The hope for a Turnbull gumint is about getting our country back on track, so back the #### off.

You'll get your rights to marriage, but there is more important stuff and you are detracting from that.

Right. Blame the people being discriminated against for asking to be treated the same.

This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.

i agree it's not a top order issue, but it's also not insignificant.

The fact it could be so easily resolved and then the focus on the major challenges we're going to face over the next 18-24 months could happen, seems to have been lost on you.

 

[Tisme]

This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.

.

He couldn't. History would have interpretted it as nepotism and thus compromised his sense of independence.

 

[wayneL]

Right. Blame the people being discriminated against for asking to be treated the same.

This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.

i agree it's not a top order issue, but it's also not insignificant.

The fact it could be so easily resolved and then the focus on the major challenges we're going to face over the next 18-24 months could happen, seems to have been lost on you.

Syd I understand your passion on this topic, but you really didn't read what I said.

I said let's get the issue resolved when appropriate and soon. But I object to the ABC presenting it as a first order priority.

It isn't. Sorry.

 

[SirRumpole]

Just for an experiment, try introducing your wife as your partner, and call your relationship a civil union. I'm sure people will give you a befuddled look.

Befuddled ? People's relationships with their partners are their own business. I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. I know people who have been together for years and haven't got married and there is nothing deficient about their relationships with each other.

 

[SirRumpole]

Befuddled ? People's relationships with their partners are their own business. I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. I know people who have been together for years and haven't got married and there is nothing deficient about their relationships with each other.

There is also nothing deficient about how other people view them.

 

[Tisme]

I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. .

In my case there is a certain amount of care amongst my peers and friends ... they appear rather envious I am getting away with having a loving and beautiful woman companion and no ring on her finger (no way am I ever getting married in the future thankyou very much and she can live in her own house too!).

 

[SirRumpole]

In my case there is a certain amount of care amongst my peers and friends ... they appear rather envious I am getting away with having a loving and beautiful woman companion and no ring on her finger (no way am I ever getting married in the future thankyou very much and she can live in her own house too!).

Glad to hear things are working out for you.